Re: RFC: guard against more "dangerous" userspace options

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>]

On Aug 21, 2009  12:32 +0530, Aneesh Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:48:08AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:43:24PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > >> I'll keep it short and sweet:
> > >>
> > >> Can we add a consistent "--eatmydata" type of hurdle to jump over before
> > >> people are allowed to use either the so-far-less-tested tools and/or
> > >> options therein?
> > >>
> > >> I'm thinking of, so far:
> > > ......
> > >> tune2fs -I <bigger>
> > > 
> > > I have sent patches which should make this better. Any chance to get
> > > that reviwed and applied
> > 
> > Better, or _safe_?  :)
> > 
> > No offense and I certainly appreciate that work.  If you feel it's
> > robust enough now to safely unleash on users, I'll drop it from my list.  :)
> 
> I am interested in the test results. Getting more users to test would always
> be nice. But it still would help to get a through review.

Adding an inode resize operation into the f_random_corruption test, or
into a similar test that runs with random mkfs parameters, would help
exercise the functionality in ways that a static test does not.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.